Superior Court

Where the plaintiffs (1) made a $200,000 advancement of funds to their defendant son and his wife to make repairs, renovations and additions on their home and (2) filed a motion for real estate attachment of the property after the defendants began divorce proceedings, the motion for a real estate attachment should be allowed in the amount of $225,000 because the advancement is likely proven to be a loan and the defendants owe the plaintiffs for unreimbursed health insurance premiums paid on their behalf.

Where the town of Oxford has brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of what it will cost the town to purchase the defendant’s water supply system, a judgment should enter declaring that the sum is to be calculated according to Oxford v. Oxford Water Co., 391 Mass. 581 (1984).

Where the plaintiff inmate filed a complaint against the Department of Correction regarding his loss of a single-cell unit, the loss did not result in an additional disciplinary sanction, but instead resulted from the housing needs of the institution, and thus the decision was within the sound discretion of the Department administrators and summary judgment for the Department must be allowed.

Where the plaintiff brought an action for a declaration that the original grantor of a lot did not reserve ownership of a proposed street abutting the lot, a judgment should be entered declaring (1) that the plaintiff is the owner of 50 percent of the proposed street, which extends her property line by a 50’ strip, and (2) that an easement exists for the defendants to use the 50' strip for all purposes for which streets may be used in Dudley.

Where a plaintiff insurance company (1) brought a subrogation action in connection with fire damage to an insured vehicle that had been dropped off at a car dealership and (2) disposed of the vehicle after its retained expert inspected it, the plaintiff should be precluded from introducing the testimony of the expert as a sanction for spoliation of the evidence.

Where the town of Westminster has requested that a defendant owner of a construction company be held in contempt of two court orders regarding a septic system, the request should be granted and the defendant should be ordered to pay the town’s counsel fees.

Where the plaintiff’s building permit was constructively revoked after the defendant, an abutting landowner, appealed to the zoning board of appeals for revocation of the permit, judgment for the defendant is proper because he filed a timely appeal, the zoning board did not exceed its authority and the property was not eligible for grandfathering under G.L.c. 40A, §6.

Where a plaintiff brought suit alleging that he was beaten at a nightclub by a defendant police officer who was on paid detail, the defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

Where (1) a plaintiff lessee sought damages arising out of his reliance on an option to purchase and (2) both parties submitted a joint appendix of materials and have asked the court to determine the issue solely on those materials, there are questions of fact that require the parties to request an evidentiary proceeding for resolution of the matter.